UK spending power 'in heavy fall'

baby_boomer

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

I'm all for "real" learning,not jumping through hoops as I said in my previous posts. Have you seen an A level Physics paper these days? Or any other A level for that matter... A Levels are demanding. It's just that many kids work extremely hard and alot of the achieve top grades, an A* is the simplest solution IMHO.

Given the extreme shortage of Physics graduates going into teaching, how can you be sure that students working hard will => better Physics students?

Imperial College don't think so.

Physics, Chemistry & probably Maths teaching expertise at A-Level is more concentrated in the private sector. So the exams will have to be made easier if the subjects aren't to die a death in the state sector.

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

This whole "A levels do not pick out the very best" is a complete red herring.

Even though A levels were taken into account at that time, I still had to sit a written test, plus the infamous interview.


I 100% agree that GCSEs and A levels are too focussed on passing exams rather than learning.

DH did not sit an exam for Oxford, also ten years ago. He had Italian qualifications instead of Alevels. But, yes, he had THE interviews. Does that suggest that international qualifications were taken more seriously?

I did also interview for my rather less significant university.

agree about the GCSE and Level thing entirely and very strongly.

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

DH did not sit an exam for Oxford, also ten years ago. He had Italian qualifications instead of Alevels. But, yes, he had THE interviews. Does that suggest that international qualifications were taken more seriously?

I had a written paper, which was partly discussed in the interview afterwards, so was not an exam as such. That had already been abolished (I think Oxford were forced to do so rather than through choice - the exam had it's own problems).

The exact arrangements I expect vary from college to college owing to the decentralised structure at Oxford. At my time (10 years ago), it was the norm to have good A levels required. Usually this meant AAA, although my offer was AAB, with B in General Studies. I actually ended up ABB with A in General Studies, but one of the B's was 0.02% off an A, so they let me in anyway. I also did "hard" subjects (Chemistry, Biology and Geography) to do PPE at University which possibly had an influence (speculation on my part.)

The interview wasn't too bad. The guy out before me warned me to expect "good cop, bad cop", so I was prepared.

My Chemistry teacher at A level said I was the only person he met who he thought could survive a grilling from Jeremy Paxman, but I don't think he meant that as a compliment.

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I had a written paper, which was partly discussed in the interview afterwards, so was not an exam as such. That had already been abolished (I think Oxford were forced to do so rather than through choice - the exam had it's own problems).

The exact arrangements I expect vary from college to college owing to the decentralised structure at Oxford. At my time (10 years ago), it was the norm to have good A levels required. Usually this meant AAA, although my offer was AAB, with B in General Studies. I actually ended up ABB with A in General Studies, but one of the B's was 0.02% off an A, so they let me in anyway. I also did "hard" subjects (Chemistry, Biology and Geography) to do PPE at University which possibly had an influence (speculation on my part.)

The interview wasn't too bad. The guy out before me warned me to expect "good cop, bad cop", so I was prepared.

My Chemistry teacher at A level said I was the only person he met who he thought could survive a grilling from Jeremy Paxman, but I don't think he meant that as a compliment.

LOL, my apologies. No, DH didn't write a paper either, that he remembers. Yes, I think hard subjects still help. DH describes the interview for the offer he chose to accept as a friendly chat.

m00m00

I only went to Oxford as a post grad, and despite completely changing subjects from Psychology to Politics (I had the Msc in Psychology already), the interview was about the easiest I've ever had. It was just more along the lines of why I didn't want to do a doctorate in psychology (and as I was doing Abnormal Psychology as my specialist are, this was a pretty easy decision to make, after some of the nasty things I'd been dealing with).

lostinrates

m00m00 wrote: »

I only went to Oxford as a post grad, and despite completely changing subjects from Psychology to Politics (I had the Msc in Psychology already), the interview was about the easiest I've ever had. It was just more along the lines of why I didn't want to do a doctorate in psychology (and as I was doing Abnormal Psychology as my specialist are, this was a pretty easy decision to make, after some of the nasty things I'd been dealing with).

DH has been to 4 various unis/colleges (did a law conversion at two different institions and did a post grad course inbetween). he loved Oxford, and gained a lot from there, and it was a BA not a post grad course, but he feel that thetandard of work required by him at the other places was without doubt higher, the hardest marking on written papers being being an ex poly.

posh*spice

lostinrates wrote: »

Does that suggest that international qualifications were taken more seriously?

No - but they do take the colour of foreign students money very seriously so I hear:rotfl:

The following seems to suggest that they don't really appreciate International qualifications:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article4321718.ece

posh*spice

lostinrates wrote: »

DH has been to 4 various unis/colleges (did a law conversion at two different institions and did a post grad course inbetween). he loved Oxford, and gained a lot from there, and it was a BA not a post grad course, but he feel that thetandard of work required by him at the other places was without doubt higher, the hardest marking on written papers being being an ex poly.

This raises some interesting points in the light of what has been reported recently

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7511601.stm
"Farce" warning on degree levels.


The old polys always had a regulatory board - the CNAA (don't know if this still exists, I'm so out of touch) They should bring in something like the CNAA to regulate the Unis before the whole degree thing does descend into farce...
...PS What a well educated bunch you are;)

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

DH has been to 4 various unis/colleges (did a law conversion at two different institions and did a post grad course inbetween). he loved Oxford, and gained a lot from there, and it was a BA not a post grad course, but he feel that thetandard of work required by him at the other places was without doubt higher, the hardest marking on written papers being being an ex poly.

At Oxford it could vary from college to college. Too often, I was given post-grads to carry the teaching, not all of whom were that good. For specific modules, it is normal to have tutorials in other colleges with specialists in those areas.

Part of the problem was that my politics tutor did not really care much about teaching, and also took a sabbatical during my second year. Some colleges could be demanding, others more relaxed. My Western European politics tutor could be demanding in an unhelpful way; I remember some negative comments on a (admittedly poor) essay which my father (who taught at a Uni level) thought were not very helpful. Others were great, such as my African politics tutor who was marvellous.

My own college was "relaxed", but did have good tutors in philosophy. Despite that, IIRC six out of the twelve PPE students that year got 2.2s or below. My 2.2 was well deserved, I was far from a model student, and found the philosophy very tough in any case.

No - but they do take the colour of foreign students money very seriously so I hear:rotfl:

Oxford is desperate for dosh, I read in my latest Oxford Today (oxymoron or what ) they have just started a big appeal.

A lot of their problems would be ameliorated if they redistributed some of their money from rich colleges to poor. Some are incredibly wealthy (St Johns) and some very poor (Pembroke).

neverdespairgirl

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

I also think that Uni admissions should be done on the basis of actual not predicted grades as awarding Uni places on the basis of provisional grades has been shown to work against working class kids.

I applied post- A level, because I wanted to take a gap year anyway. I'd been predicted AAB, and as I got 3 As it was to my benefit.